A. The meaning of a clause that the contract is automatically rescinded at the time of termination of the bilateral contract

(b) Statement that recognizes the legal effect which is the premise of the subject matter of a lawsuit and its withdrawal;

A. In the event of a seller’s breach of contract, the clause that the seller pays for the amount of the down payment, and the seller acquires the down payment paid at the time of the buyer’s breach of contract, and the seller automatically cancels the contract, is a reservation clause of the right of rescission that the contracting party may rescind the contract by giving up the down payment to the other party or compensating for the double the amount,

B. The statement that recognizes the legal relationship or legal effect, which is the premise of the subject matter of a lawsuit, does not bind the court, but can be freely withdrawn without the consent of the other party. Thus, even if the defendant has led to the confession that the contract was rescinded by the plaintiff, it cannot be deemed that the contract has the effect of cancelling the contract.

A. Article 565 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 79Da1595 delivered on December 26, 1979

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1

Defendant 1 and three others, Defendant 1, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant of the deceased non-party 1

Seoul High Court Decision 76Na2504 delivered on March 12, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

1. On the first and second grounds:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below reasoned that the plaintiff agreed to deliver the above documents to the defendant for the transfer registration of ownership with the payment certificate issued by the head office of 50,000 won for the above 100 won and 600,000 won for the above 600 won of the intermediate payment for the above 600,000 won and 100,000 won for the above 600,000 won of the intermediate payment for the above 600,000 won of the above 70,000 won of the above 60,000 won of the above 70,000 won of the above 60,000 won of the above 60,000 won of the above 60,000 won of the above 7,000,000 won of the above 60,000 won of the above 50,000 won of the above 6,000 won of the above 6,000,0.

2. As to No. 3:

According to the records and reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the contract of this case is identical to the theory that the contract of this case was automatically cancelled by the plaintiff's assertion that the contract of this case was automatically cancelled, because the contract of this case was entered into by the parties, namely, the special contract of this case, Article 6 of the evidence No. 1 of the contract of this case, and Article 6 of the contract of this case, the contract of this case was received by Eul (the seller) at the same time when the contract of this case was terminated, and there was an agreement that the contract of this case would be automatically cancelled, and the contract of this case was automatically cancelled. The contract of this case was automatically cancelled by the contract of this case on the ground that the contract of this case was rescinded by the contract of this case and the contract of this case was rescinded by the contract of this case, the contract of this case was rescinded by the contract of this case and the contract of this case was rescinded by the contract of this case and the contract of this case was automatically cancelled by the contract of this case.

3. As to No. 4

According to the brief and written reply of the theory of the lawsuit, it is proper that the defendant does not explicitly or implicitly consent or agree on the expression of the plaintiff's intention to cancel the contract, but rather explicitly expresses his intention to cancel the contract while demanding compensation for damages suffered by the defendant. In the same purport, the court below rejected the plaintiff's argument of the theory of the lawsuit in the same purport, and the statement that recognizes the relation of right or legal effect, which is a premise of the lawsuit, is not bound by the court, and can be freely withdrawn without the consent of the other party. Therefore, even if the defendant has led to the confession of the legal effect of the contract of this case, the measure of the court below to reject the plaintiff's argument of the theory of the lawsuit on the cancellation of the contract cannot be deemed as an unlawful ground of the theory of the lawsuit, and the seller's assertion that the other party can terminate the contract even after the contract of the contract of the contract is compensated for the non-existence of the contract of the contract or the cause of impossibility of the contract of the contract of the contract of the other party cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jung-soo (Presiding Justice) and Lee Jong-young's Lee Jong-young